Dennis v. State
2016 Ark. 44
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Darrell Napoleon Dennis pleaded guilty in two Pulaski County cases (60CR-09-2465; 60CR-10-1848) and received concurrent aggregate sentences of 720 months.
- Dennis filed postconviction motions (Nov. 19, 2013) asserting relief under Ark. R. Crim. P. 26.1 and 37.1; the circuit court disposed of relevant motions by order entered June 23, 2014.
- Dennis filed notices of appeal on Sept. 23, 2014; the clerk declined to lodge the records because those notices were not timely.
- Dennis then filed multiple pro se motions in the Arkansas Supreme Court seeking belated appeal (or rule on clerk), appointment of counsel, permission to use/supplement the record, and asserted he did not receive prompt notice of the June 23 order.
- He produced prison mail evidence showing receipt of court mail on July 21, 2014, and argued the court’s delayed mailing caused his untimely appeal filing.
- The Supreme Court treated the filings as motions for belated appeal under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(e), found Dennis failed to show good cause for the entire delay, denied belated appeal relief in part, and rendered counsel/record requests moot.
Issues
| Issue | Dennis's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dennis is entitled to a belated appeal of the June 23, 2014 order | The court delayed mailing the order; he received notice July 21, 2014, so delay caused untimely filing | Dennis did not show good cause for delay beyond the court’s mailing lapse | Denied: court’s delayed mailing insufficient to excuse the full lateness; Dennis failed to show good cause |
| Whether court must appoint counsel for appeal | Needs counsel to pursue appeal of postconviction denial | No entitlement if belated appeal not granted | Moot (requests become moot after denial of belated appeal) |
| Whether Dennis may use or supplement the record on appeal | Requests access/supplementation to support belated-appeal motion | Requests depend on allowing an appeal | Moot (since belated appeal denied) |
| Whether failure to timely file is excused because petitioner proceeded pro se | Pro se status and court mailing delay excuse procedural lapses | Pro se litigant still bears burden to show good cause | Rejected: pro se status does not relieve procedural obligations; burden remains on petitioner |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. State, 2015 Ark. 195 (per curiam) (treating untimely notice as basis to construe filings as motions for belated appeal)
- Bean v. State, 2014 Ark. 440 (per curiam) (right to appeal a postconviction ruling)
- Nelson v. State, 2013 Ark. 316 (per curiam) (Rule 37.3(d) requires prompt notice by circuit court)
- Green v. State, 2015 Ark. 198 (per curiam) (where record is silent and State cannot prove prompt mailing, assume petitioner not notified)
- Early v. Hobbs, 2015 Ark. 313 (per curiam) (burden on petitioner to establish good cause for procedural failures)
- Miller v. State, 2013 Ark. 182 (per curiam) (pro se litigants must conform to procedural rules)
- Webb v. State, 365 Ark. 22, 223 S.W.3d 796 (2006) (Rule 26.1 issues must be raised before sentencing)
- Gunderman v. State, 2014 Ark. 354 (motion for belated appeal filed >18 months after judgment may be dismissed)